Public Lands for Government Efficiency?

[Big Fin]

The term "government efficiency" is historically a contradiction. Congress makes sure that government cannot be efficient, whether by getting proper returns on government assets or by spending government money in ways that get the best ROI.

A stunning number of things have crossed my desk that last two weeks focusing on public lands as somehow the reason Department of Ag (Forest Service parent department) and Department of Interior (BLM and USFWS parent department) having budget problems. The number of creative (devious being a better term) ways some are trying to justify their long-held desire for selling some public land is stunning. Many of them I don't even both with, as they are so far out in the weeds.

Marcus asked me to layout the Federal budget in the most simple terms possible and see what USFS, BLM, and USFWS contribute to the budget crisis in their corresponding parent agencies. I did that. The outcome is as expected.


I'll be honest, I'm tired of this public land topic being front and center in the minds of so many in DC as a way to solve some budget woes. I suspect exhaustion is part of intentional tactics on the other side. If that is a tactic, I think it is working.

As Senator Martin Heinrich told me in the podcast we will release next week, "If we lose just once, we might lose forever." I'm not interested in losing even once on public lands, so we continue to provide information we think is helpful for our audience to sort through the smoke screens that somehow selling some public lands will solve Congress' fiscal irresponsibility and dereliction of duty.

Here is a Fresh Track Weekly video that goes over the high level items at Ag and DOI that would be in the $Billions if DOGE was serious about "Government Efficiency," however oxymoronic that term is.

 

[utah400elk]

Randy,

Thank you for fighting for all of us/public lands. I really appreciate your no-nonsense approach and passion.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Brought up my concerns to my senators. So far thune is the only one to respond. See below for his response.

Overall pretty non committal from his response

 

[Rie Bread]

don’t worry Tim shehe is on it.

 

[SAJ-99]

The term "government efficiency" is historically a contradiction. Congress makes sure that government cannot be efficient, whether by getting proper returns on government assets or by spending government money in ways that get the best ROI.

A stunning number of things have crossed my desk that last two weeks focusing on public lands as somehow the reason Department of Ag (Forest Service parent department) and Department of Interior (BLM and USFWS parent department) having budget problems. The number of creative (devious being a better term) ways some are trying to justify their long-held desire for selling some public land is stunning. Many of them I don't even both with, as they are so far out in the weeds.

Marcus asked me to layout the Federal budget in the most simple terms possible and see what USFS, BLM, and USFWS contribute to the budget crisis in their corresponding parent agencies. I did that. The outcome is as expected.

View attachment 368977
I'll be honest, I'm tired of this public land topic being front and center in the minds of so many in DC as a way to solve some budget woes. I suspect exhaustion is part of intentional tactics on the other side. If that is a tactic, I think it is working.

As Senator Martin Heinrich told me in the podcast we will release next week, "If we lose just once, we might lose forever." I'm not interested in losing even once on public lands, so we continue to provide information we think is helpful for our audience to sort through the smoke screens that somehow selling some public lands will solve Congress' fiscal irresponsibility and dereliction of duty.

Here is a Fresh Track Weekly video that goes over the high level items at Ag and DOI that would be in the $Billions if DOGE was serious about "Government Efficiency," however oxymoronic that term is.

Thanks Randy. You are only scratching the surface here. All public-land advocates can do is send a message to their Congressional representative. Dem or Rep, it doesn't matter. SEND THE EMAIL. MAKE THE CALL.

- Note: The reason "savings" are given as a 10yr number isn't to increase the number, but it is because that is the 10yr number needed to pass the budget bills.
- I have done a lot of analysis on this. We have a REVENUE problem, but no one wants to admit it. My advice is ignore the number of zeros. And look at changes to expenditures on an inflation-adjusted basis. The two main problems are interest expense and Medicaid. The rest is noise.
- DOGE is a joke, but it is an exercise that sells to the public.

Elections have consequences and the money is the point. Until voters realize they are getting screwed, nothing will change.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I’ve said since this all began that if the military/pentagon isn’t touched then it’s all a charade. Love the simplified 30k foot view of the budget. Cutting pennies to save dollars! Thanks Randy, watching the episode now.

 

[rogerthat]

Going to be a really sad day for this country if we sell even one acre to fund tax cuts. Keep on beating the drum Randy and speaking truths. Something that is sorely needed right now.

 

[Neumie]

I don’t trust Zinke one bit. You sure about this one Randy?

 

[Gr8bawana]

Let's just cut it all down and then we don't need to worry about forest fires anymore.

The Secretarial Memo issued by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins established an "Emergency Situation Determination" and will allow the Forest Service to bypass many existing environmental rules. Protections against wildfires and the need to boost the U.S. timber industry were cited as reasons.

"I am proud to follow the bold leadership of President Trump by empowering forest managers to reduce constraints and minimize the risks of fire, insects, and disease so that we can strengthen American timber industry and further enrich our forests with the resources they need to thrive," Rollins said in a statement.

 

[Big Fin]

I don’t trust Zinke one bit. You sure about this one Randy?

Yeah, right now, in these times, I'm sure.

Not specific to your question, rather a general comment based on messages and comments I've gotten lately.

Whether someone trusts Zinke, or not, the reality is, he is one of the backstops in the Republican Party on this issue. He has been consistent on public lands since his days in the Montana legislature.

Will party pressure get him to cave on that issue for bigger party goals? Not sure. I hope not. Possible that huge pressures could be brought. If he has no support back home for bucking that trend in his party, his rewards for doing the right things on public land are far less and his risks are much higher.

I encourage him every time the chance arises by thanking him for being strong on public land issues. He sits on the Appropriations Committee, a very powerful House Committee, the most powerful in the minds of some. He also sits on the Interior subcommittee for the Approps Committee, along with Mike Simpson (R-ID). By most assessments, Zinke and Simpson are the most reliable Republicans when it comes to public lands and conservation.

The same can be said of Senator Daines. Some don't trust him. I do. He sits on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, the most important committee in the Senate on public land issues. The chair of that committee is Mike Lee (R-UT), one of the most anti-public members in the entire Congress when it comes to public lands. Daines is our hope for any balance on public lands with Lee in charge of that committee.

I get plenty of grief for supporting Zinke and Daines when they are good on public lands and conservation. Fine. Public lands and conservation are the top item on my list and I feel lucky that two of the most influential people in Congress on that issue just happen to be my Senator and my Congressman.

I will continue to encourage them to stay strong on these issues when the sentiment among most their party is not favorable to public lands. When they do good things and show leadership on those issues, I'm going to give them credit. They have people within their party who try to make their legislative efforts in Congress more difficult due to their positions on public lands. Last thing they need is for them to not be supported when they buck that trend. To that point, I am working with both of them to do podcast episodes with me, the same Senator Heinrich did when I was in DC (will be released in a week or two).

I read, and often get messages from, people who dislike Zinke and Daines. When it comes to public land issues, hacking on those two is stupid. If one really cares about the issues and not the party/person, you encourage anyone who is on our side when it comes to public lands. If you want, disagree with them on other issues, but make sure you encourage and support them when they do the right things on public lands.

We cannot afford to lose the public land ownership/disposal battles. Once they are gone, we will never get them back. If we lose some skirmishes on a policy, procedure, admin rule, those can be changed in the future. But when it comes to public land, once it's gone, we're screwed. All the other debates become moot without the land.

Some people wonder why I'm 100% focused on the land issues and far less concerned on the procedure/admin rule issues, and even less engaged in Montana issues. It's a function of priority, limited time, and risk. Those procedure and admin rules are important for quality management. Yet, right now, the process of starting to sell portions of public lands is as close to reality as any time in my life. Establishing that infrastructure and momentum to do so, even if it starts with smaller efforts, will have far more long-term consequences than any of the procedure/admin rule issues.

Zinke, Daines, Simpson, have shown to be allies in these efforts. They aren't getting any "atta boys" among their party for doing so. I'll be there encouraging and supporting as I can.

 

[Neumie]

Thank you for your reply. Your leadership on this is commendable.

 

[warmer]

Brought up my concerns to my senators. So far thune is the only one to respond. See below for his response.

Overall pretty non committal from his response View attachment 368983

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response from Rounds. It's unlikely to come.

 

[Pilgrim]

Randy, that Fresh Tracks Weekly Episode was outstanding! The recitation of billion-dollar-plus categories of potential revenue sources and expense savings that would be available with a little common-sense legislation on mineral extraction (and restoration), feral horse management, etc. really drove the point home. Is there a bullet point list of those somewhere that we could append to emails to our representatives and ask: Why don't you start here? We all know why they won't, but at least we're letting them know we know.

Thanks for all you and Marcus do with these videos to keep us informed of these legislative shenanigans.

 

[Pucky Freak]

640M acres of federal public land in the US. A wild guess, if the average sale price is $3500/ac, selling it all generates $2.24T. That would cover federal spending for less than 4 months, or deficit spending for 14 months, or reduce the cumulative debt by 6.7%.

 

[Forkyfinder]

640M acres of federal public land in the US. A wild guess, if the average sale price is $3500/ac, selling it all generates $2.24T. That would cover federal spending for less than 4 months, or deficit spending for 14 months, or reduce the cumulative debt by 6.7%.

Even doubling price (pie in the sky) that still paints a bad picture.

Id prefer they start to deal with the real problem - mostly non - discretionary spending.

Itd be more fun, and about as useful, to be talking about trying to fix the problem with a dunk tank fundraiser for legislators.

 

[Pucky Freak]

It is obviously difficult to estimate avg land value of such vast and diverse holdings. Capitol Hill could go for more than a million per acre, as would Old Faithful. Then there is remote arctic tundra fetching less than $100 per acre.

If we exclude all developed federal land, parks, public works, and military bases, and instead sell all undeveloped BLM and USFS land, it is still well in excess of 400M acres. The sale of that alone is a drop in the bucket on the federal balance sheet.